validate_rule_xml

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds that the draft is never applied, confirming validation-only semantics. It also discloses the three checks performed, which is behavioral detail not present in the schema or annotations. It stops short of describing what a failure response contains.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose and the key constraint (never applies it) both front-loaded. Every clause carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description should indicate what validation returns (pass/fail, a list of issues, collision details). That gap leaves the agent unsure how to consume the result, though the tool is otherwise simple enough that little else is needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50%: the env parameter is documented in the schema with a pointer to list_environments, while xml is a bare required string. The description implies xml holds the rule draft in XML form, adding modest meaning, but never mentions env or any format expectations for the XML payload.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb (Check) and resource (a rule draft) and enumerates the three classes of problem it looks for: XML syntax, OS_Regex pitfalls, and rule ID collisions. That is far more specific than the bare name, though it never names a sibling such as simulate_rule or logtest to sharpen the boundary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Never applies it' implies this is a pre-flight validation step rather than a testing/execution step, which is useful context for choosing between it and siblings. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative, so the routing must be inferred.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.